HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Variance Appeal: Vermillion State Bank, 10540 Canada AvenueCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: September 5, 2000
AGENDA ITEM: Variance Appeal: Vermillion State Bank
AGENDA SECTION:
15040 Canada Avenue
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA ,
ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Appeal, Site illustration, P.C. Minutes
APPROVED BY:
(7- 25 -00), Staff summary, Reasons for request,
Required Findings
Applicant & Property Owner:
Location:
Area in Acres:
Comp. Guide Plan Desig:
Current Zoning:
Nature of request:
Board of Appeals & Adj. Action:
i V
Kevin Pedelty of Vermillion State Bank
15040 Canada Ave. (former Tom Thumb)
0.78 acres (two parcels)
Commercial
C -4, General Commercial
Setback variances for driveways on three sides:
Front Yard @ CSAH 42 10'requested/ 20' required
Side Yard @ east side 0' requested/ 10' required
Rear Yard @ south side 4' requested/ 10' required
Denial (4 -0).
SUMMARY
Mr. Pedelty of the Vermillion State Bank has decided to appeal the Board of Appeals & Adjustments denial of
the variance request. As previously stated, staff is concerned about the relative location of the building on the
property. Even with the setback variances, staff is concerned about the limitations of the space available in
addition to the aesthetic considerations.
If the Council is inclined to overturn the Board of Appeals & Adjustments denial, then Staff recommends:
L The two parcels be combined into one lot (it should be platted as one lot) to eliminate the property line
that currently bisects the building.
2. A snow- storage easement should be acquired from the neighboring property owner. This means that the
fence should be moved ten feet east and turf established in the storage area. Otherwise, snow would
have to be removed from this portion of the site.
3. The parking lot should be redesigned to shift the drive through exit lane away from the
maneuvering/parking lane in front of the building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments.
- or—
Motion to overturn the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and grant the variance subject to the
above mentioned three items and any others that the Council may require.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
fiERMMUON ISANK
107 East Main Street - PO Box 28 - Vermillion, MN 55085
Phone: 651-437-4433 Fax: 651-437-1842
- - -- Member FDIC - - --
August 3, 2000
City Council of Rosemount
P.O. Box 510
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
To whom it may concern:
On July 25th 2000, Kevin Pedelty, on behalf of Vermillion State Bank, appeared before the
Rosemount Planning Commission to request a variance for setbacks to the property located at
15040 Canada Avenue. With all due respect, Vermillion Bank wishes to appeal the decision to
the City Council.
Please be kind enough to review the information presented to the Plan Commission and provide
us with any guidance which might assist us in accomplishing our goals of strengthening our
community involvement with the City of Rosemount.
Vermillion Bank is anxious to make a significant investment in improving a currently vacant and
highly visible property. In discussions with neighbors, I've received nothing but positive
feedback for this project.
Thank you for your consideration. If any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at
(651) 437 - 4433.
Very truly yours,
Kevin Pedelty
Vice President
975 Lyn way
Hastings, MN 55033
Phone: 651437 -8288
Fax: 651 -438 -2874
255 West 33rd.
Hastings, MN 55033
Phone: 651 -437 -7775
Fax: 651 -437 -8455
2975 80th St. East
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
Phone: 651- 455 -9596
Fax: 651 -455 -9549
3410 15 1 st. St. West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Phone: 651-423-4303
Fax: 651 -423 -9213
.
r
1
CANADA
AVENUE
IF
1.
�' •'fir.
_
1
----------
W
VEf" STATE BANK
//M n,a�a�c►ettm
p
1.
...
l
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
Page 6
MOT by Droste to continue the public hearing o TJ Limited Partnership (Cub
Foods) Plana Unit Development Amendment Final Plat to August 8, 2000, at 7:00
p.m. Seconded b oe- Corrigan. Ayes: eisensel, Napper, Droste, and Shoe
Corrigan. Nays: 0. Mo carried.
Chairperson Droste recess a me ' g for five minutes. The meeting reconvened at
10:05 p.m.
Chairperso oste recessed the regular Planning Co 'ssion meeting and convened the
B Appeals & Adjustments.
Public Hearing: Vermillion State Bank— Variance to Setbacks
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Vermillion State
Bank for a variance to setback requirements. The recording secretary has placed the
Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice
on file with the City.
Mr. Pearson indicated that Vermillion State Bank wishes to relocate to the former Tom
Thumb site. The bank has requested a variance to setbacks for three sides of the building
in order to construct a drive- through lane. Mr. Pearson summarized the setback
encroachments and possible resolutions. Lack of snow storage space and traffic
circulation present concerns.
Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the applicant.
Kevin Pedelty appeared on behalf of the Vermillion State Bank. Mr. Pedelty summarized
improvements planned for the site. He indicated that approximately 70% of the bank's
business is drive - through. The variance on the south side is not required as initially
anticipated. Snow storage would not be a problem because the bank has the snow hauled
away.
Commissioners discussed the possibility of a drive- through lane in the front of the
building. Stacking problems and the turning radius presented unsafe conditions. Mr.
Pedelty indicated the option of constructing a new building on the site was cost
prohibitive.
Mr. Pearson explained that at the time the building was constructed, the parcel was never
combined, resulting in a property line which bisects the building. This would have to be
corrected if a variance is granted.
Commissioner Napper indicated he would rather see a bank in this location.
Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the public. There were no comments.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
Page 7
MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Napper. Ayes: Napper,
Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, and Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carved.
MOTION by Weisensel to deny the variance because of an inability to meet the findings
specified by Section 14.2G of the zoning ordinance. Seconded by Droste. Ayes:
Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, Weisensel, and Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Chairperson Droste closed the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and reconvened the
regular Planning Commission meeting
There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon MOTION by
Droste and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne G. Quinnell
Recording Secretary
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
Board of Appeals & Adjustments Meeting Date: July 25, 2000
AGENDA ITEM: Vermillion State Bank — Variance to setbacks
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan Reduction; Reason for request;
APPROVED BY:
Required findings
Applicant &Property Owner:
Location:
Area in Acres:
Comp. Guide Plan Desig:
Current Zoning:
Nature of Request:
Vermillion State Bank
15040 Canada Avenue (former Tom Thumb site)
0.78 acres (two parcels)
Commercial
C -4, General Commercial
Setback variances for driveways on three sides:
Front Yard @ CSAH 42 10' / 20' required
Side Yard @ east side 0' / 10' required
Rear Yard @ south side 4' / 10' required
SUMMARY
The Vermillion State Bank has requested a variance to setbacks for three sides of the old Tom Thumb building
in order to construct a drive- through lane that would encircle the building. Staff is concerned that the request is
excessive, even though the variance concept is supported as a tool for redevelopment of a long — abandoned site.
Primarily, the setback along the east side next to Carlson Tractor is "zero -lot". That means that there is no snow
storage space, to say nothing of green space, landscaping or drainage. The petitioner states that the Carlson site
is allowed to have fences and equipment up to the lot line. This is true to a point. The Carlson site is non-
conforming, and would certainly conform to current standards upon redevelopment.
Staff is aware of the applicant's attempts to design a drive - through in the center of the parking lot, and has
studied the challenge in some detail. If the Planning Commission is inclined to grant a variance, staff would
suggest that a snow - storage easement be negotiated with the Carlson', with a minimum depth of ten feet (equal
to the standard side setback on the Carlson property). In addition, the building actually straddles a property line,
indicating land previously purchased to expand the site, but never combined with the westerly parcel. This
should be corrected, in any event.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to deny the variance because of an inability to meet the findings specified by Section 14.2 G of the
zoning ordinance.
BOARD OF APPEALS & ADJUSTMENTS ACTION:
EXHIBIT A
REASON FOR REQUEST
Vermillion Bank purchased the property at 15040 Canada Avenue intending to convert the facility into a Bank
location. Visibility is a critical component in building a new bank business. We believe that the subject
property will help us to achieve this visibility and enable the bank to bring competitive products to the
community of Rosemount delivered with superior service. The property will put us on an equal footing with the
competing financial service facilities in Rosemount.
Without granting of the variance, it would not be possible to use this property for a bank. It is estimated that
75% of bank visits today are made to a drive- through facility. If the variance is not granted, this facility will not
be able to allow for drive- through visits. Our architect, Jim Grover of HTG, Ltd., has attempted several layouts
with the traffic circling around or through the existing parking lot (extended to its maximum boundaries ten feet
forward). Each layout was deficient in allowing for an adequate turning ratio, stacking requirements for four (4)
vehicles, sufficient green space and adequate parking.
In addition, placing the drive- through facility in the front would endanger and discourage customers needing to
conduct business inside the lobby. A significant and important segment of a bank's deposit base comes from
senior citizens. These individuals would be particularly at risk if required to walk across the path of the
drive- through traffic lanes to reach the bank. This layout would also result in great difficulty in clearing snow
from the lot or access to the property by emergency personnel and equipment.
Ron Carlson of Carlson Tractor and Equipment owns the neighboring property directly to the East of the
property. I have discussed the possible purchase of a strip of land adjacent to the property, however, at this
point they are concerned about their future development plans. Ron indicated that he did not object to the
granting of this variance. Similarly, conversations with Alan Hopeman indicated that the school district
property to the south is facing a shortage of parking within its fenced boundaries and could not sell or lease
space to the Bank.
Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will not be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood In speaking with the adjoining
neighbors, neither expressed any concern as to the impact on their property or use of their facilities. Exterior
improvements to the building required in order to change the facility to a bank will have a positive impact on
property values and neighborhood improvements. The existing improvements on the subject property are in
disrepair and somewhat unsightly. The bank will want to upgrade the image significantly, providing much
better curb appeal and increasing the tax values (and tax revenue base) in the area. The addition of the
drive- through lane around the bank will also provide emergency equipment access to the property and its
neighbor that would not otherwise be available. The bank would bare the cost of any changes required to
neighboring fences to assure safety to employees, customers and company assets.
Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide Plan Vermillion Bank has
made a substantial investment in this property. The current improvements, although needing aesthetic upgrades,
is built with steel beam construction covering a 4,000 square foot foundation footprint. The amount paid for the
property cannot be financially justified without the use of this building.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, use or
facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district The property is adjoined by
property to the East and South, each of which were allowed to build fences and park vehicles abutting to the
property line. This property is on the comer, hemmed in by the to before mentioned properties, County road 42
and Canada Avenue. The bank would be at a serious competitive disadvantage if not allowed to add a
drive- through access.
Strict of literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of the property in a
manner similar to other owners in the same district The city of Rosemount has two existing bank's each
with drive- through facilities and similar visibility to the community.
Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the zoning district
The property is identified as C -4 general business district. General banking with a drive - through facility is
allowed under this zone.
J
i
FINDINGS
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the City Council, upon appeal, must find as follows
in the granting of a variance from this ordinance:
1, Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety and will
not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Guide
Plan.
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of his
property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the
zoning district in question.